Homestead Land Holdings Ltd. Trying to Evict Ontario Tenant Because of Blog.: Illegal Entry & Other "Illegal" Acts

.
UPDATE: Mar. 14, 2006. I have listened to the tapes that were provided to me, by the ORHT on Jan. 14, 2001. They numbered them Tapes 1 and 2. Until several days ago, I thought that ORHT only forwarded the beginning of my Jan. 2, 2001 hearing, because at the tribunal my hearing was the last of the day, on Tapes 2 and 3. Why did they not reply to my letter or send a note to explain that they had renumbered the tapes? When I initially received them, I listened to the first tape and there other hearings on side one. I listened to over half of side 2 and could find nothing. I rewound the second tape, finding another hearing. Since I knew that mine was the final hearing that day, well I was very disappointed.

Long story a little shorter, when I listened to both tapes in their entirety, WOW, was I surprised to find that they had sent the recording of the entire hearing. My hearing actually began near the end of Side 2 on Tape 1. I WILL TRANSCRIBE THIS HEARING AND LIST IT AS A SEPARATE BLOG ENTRY UNDER THE TITLE: "ORHT Hearing Transcript: January 2, 2001; File EAT-02346"

UPDATE: Feb. 27, 2006. I spoke on the telephone today, with the Kingston Whig Standard reporter, Mr. Ian Elliot, who interviewed me on the 23rd. The article, which he is writing and for which I was photographed on the 26th, may be printed in the Tues., Feb. 28 edition of the newspaper. Homestead Land Holdings Limited has refused requests for an interview.

UPDATE: Feb. 23, 2006: Martin Woock, area manager of the Kingston Office of Ontario's Homestead Land Holdings Ltd., and his assistant Kim Adams, personally hand-delivered an eviction notice to me at about 10:00 a.m. today. I have never been able to reach him on the phone, but two times now (today and Feb. 10th), he has personally hand-delivered Eviction notices to me, each time slipping them under the door. This is a prime example of the extent to which Homestead is willing to go, to HARASS, INTIMIDATE AND get rid of me. WHAT IS THE REASON, THAT THEY ARE CITING ON THE EVICTION NOTICE, FOR THE EVICTION OF A MIDDLE-AGED WIDOWED FEMALE TENANT, WHO LIVES ALONE WITH HER TWO AGING KITTY CATS, AND WHO IS ON A FIXED GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO DISABILITY INCOME? THIS BLOG.

Yes, they are stating that this blog is the reason they have for evicting me. I have lived here since August of 1994. There have never been any complaints against me, not even a solitary noise complaint!

It is filed under the ORHT # EAL-55359. The hearing is to be held at the Royal Canadian Legion, 734 Montreal Street, Kingston, on March 15, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.

UPDATE: Feb. 23, 2006: I was interviewed in my apartment today, by Mr. Ian Elliot, reporter at the Kingston Whig Standard. I had contacted members of the media, locally and in Ontario, regarding the eviction notice.

UPDATE: Feb. 20, 2006: P.I.P.E.D.A. DOES NOT APPLY TO BLOGS OR PERSONAL SITES!

UPDATE: Feb. 16, 2006: Directly beneath my 2 updates on Feb. 10, 2006 (below), I am installing verbatim information, which I am transcribing directly from two documents. I should have done this a long time ago. One is the Affidavit that Cheryl Lambert provided to the ORHT Hearing on Jan. 2, 2001. The other is the order I received from Ian MacInnis, dated Jan. 5, 2001.

UPDATE: Feb. 13, 2006: I usually place my updates at the end of my blog, but this is rather crucial, involving a violation of my constitutional right to Freedom of Speech as provided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so I decided to install it at the beginning instead. My landlord admitted to being responsible for my original website (kingstonkittens.tripod.com) being shut down. I quote in verbatim from their Feb. 10, 2006 Notice to Terminate a Tenancy Early (see all information from that document below in my Feb. 10 update): "THE WEBSITE WAS REMOVED BY THE SERVICE PROVIDER LYCOS INC. WITH INTERVENTION BY THE LANDLORD.........AND CONTRAVENED THE P.I.P.E.D.A ACT.". I telephoned the Government of Canada Privacy Commissioner on Feb. 10. She advised me that P.I.P.E.D.A. does not regulate blogs/personal sites, which is why I could find no information pertinent to my case, when I read the Act online. It regulates websites of organizations, corporations, commercial sites, etc. If you wish to view the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (P.I.P.E.D.A.), please visit the Privacy Commissioner's site at www.priv.com.gc.ca.

Also of great importance, Section 2, Fundamental Freedoms under the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms", I quote in verbatim: "2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. Freedom of Speech is also protected under: "Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 19) " and "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (article 19)".

At present, I am in communication with several members of the media and an Ontario activist group, regarding my personal dilemma, that of being harassed, intimidated and "bullied" by my landlord. I shall provide an update, as soon as it is feasible.

THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL BEGINNING OF MY BLOG (now with some updates): WARNING TO RENTERS:

If you rent, or are seeking to rent, an apartment in Ontario, BEWARE of Homestead Land Holdings Limited (I shall refer to them as Homestead). They are a very large business (in 2002 net worth over $2,000,000,000, that's right $2 billion), which is probably why they get away with anything and everything. The company was founded by a lawyer (Britton Smith, QC), so if you wish to file a civil law suit or criminal charges against them, good luck. Mr. Smith retired, but his son Britton Jr. (another lawyer) is "running the show", so to speak. It is impossible to find a lawyer who would oppose them. If anyone has found a lawyer or politician who would dare to oppose them, please let me know, especially if you won!

They are supporters of many politicians, so you won't get help there. MPP for Kingston and the Islands, John Gerretsen is a personal friend of Britton Smith (possibly both Sr. and Jr.). In his third term as MPP for the riding of Kingston and the Islands, Premier McGuinty appointed him as Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing and responsible for Seniors, in October of 2003. I filed a complaint against Homestead with the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the local MPP, Gerretsen (how naive was I???), The Ombudsman's office, the Kingston Legal Aid Clinic (repeatedly said they were too busy to help, but I can only surmise about the real reason why they refused to help), and even two Premiers of Ontario from two political parties (Eaves and McGuinty, I'll get into that later), to no avail. I have actually filed numerous written complaints with MPP Gerretsen (KINGSTON LAWYER), against Homestead. I filed written complaints with my city councillor, George Stoparczyk (Trillium District 6, Kingston)in 2005. I even filed a complaint with the federal MP, Peter Milliken, but he did not bother to reply. Mr. Milliken (KINGSTON LAWYER)was born in Kingston and is serving his 5th term as MP for the riding of Kingston and the Islands, and has been Speaker of the House of Commons since 2004.

Homestead Land Holdings Ltd. (founded and owned by KINGSTON LAWYERS) have many real estate holdings (ie. apartment buildings, nearly 50 in Kingston alone) in Ontario, with offices in Kingston, Ottawa, Toronto, London, Hamilton (with buildings in Brantford, Guelph, Kitchener and St. Catharines being administered by the Hamilton office). They also have holdings in Sarnia, and maybe an office there as well. As of today, Feb. 27, 2006, they have almost 50 apartment buildings in Kingston alone, with plans for more.

Then there is the HUGE development on Block "D" in Downtown Kingston, on the waterfront of Lake Ontario, that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention millions in municipal tax breaks, that Homestead is developing RIGHT NOW. There was a photo of the site in a January 31, 2006 edition of Kingston This Week. I "Googled" "Homestead Land Holding and Block D" and found it. My search produced quite a few links about this topic. The site will include apartments, condominiums, hotel and park space.

This is just one woman's opinion, but with all the money that is going into this development and what they are gaining in potential revenues plus tax breaks, I have to wonder why Homestead Land Holdings Limited is so reluctant to make vital repairs to existing holdings. A prime example is my own story. It took over 10 1/2 years, of my going through the proper channels, of begging, pleading and trying to get them to replace: my disintegrating and, in some places, non-existant floor tiles; my grossly warped/drafty windows; and make other repairs that should have been made many years earlier.

These vital repairs were not done until January to June, 2006. They were only done then BECAUSE Toxic mould was discovered, in my bedroom, following a roof leak. Bill Gilbert, the superintendent at the time, told me that the roofer, Williams Brothers Restoration, discovered that water was leaking under the flashing. Homestead had been trying to tell me that it was condensation from cooking, showers, etc. that caused the growth of the toxic mould. If that were the case, then commen sense would dictate that every apartment could or should have had the same problem. There has always been only one person living in this apartment, since I moved here in August of 1994, and I do very little cooking, so there is not much "cooking-generated" steam. All year round, I use "tepid" water when showering, again not much steam. My bathroom mirror does not even "steam up". Imagine the steam generated in apartments where there are three, four, even more tenants. Imagine the amount of steam generated from showering, bathing, cooking, etc. Shouldn't they have toxic mould problems, like I did, according to the "line" that Homestead was feeding to me?

THE APARTMENT REPAIRS, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE MANY, MANY, YEARS AGO, SOME OF THEM POSSIBLY EVEN YEARS BEFORE I MOVED HERE IN AUGUST OF 1994, WERE FINALLY DONE BETWEEN JANUARY AND JUNE OF 2006. THEY WERE ONLY DONE, UPON THE DIRECT ORDER OF THE CITY OF KINGSTON PROPERTY STANDARDS OFFICER. IMAGINE THIS, IN MY MID-FORTIES, I HAD SPENT NEARLY A QUARTER OF MY LIFE (SINCE 1994), TRYING TO GET VITAL REPAIRS MADE IN MY APARTMENT!!!!! IN THAT TIME, THEY COLLECTED NEARLY $50,000 IN RENT FROM ME (I HAVE THE RENT RECEIPTS FROM HOMESTEAD, PRINTED BY THEM AT THEIR 80 JOHNSON ST. RENTAL OFFICE, TO PROVE IT.).

There is a government organization in Ontario, which is allegedly SUPPOSED to protect the rights of the tenants. It is called the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (ORHT). I think they should be renamed, something like Ontario Landlord Protection Agency (OLPA) ha ha. They "allegedly" enforce the Tenant Protection Act (TPA), which "theoretically" is for the protection of Ontario tenants. I think it should be more appropriately entitled something like "The Landlord, Tenant Kiss Your Cheeks Because You Have No Rights You Idiots, Protection Act (LTKYCBYHNRYIPA). Too long? They do little, if anything at all, to protect the rights of the tenants of this province, especially from the bigger landlords.

If you do a search on the website, you will find many complaints against the ORHT, especially for exhibiting favouritism towards landlords. Check it out. Groups have filed class-action complaints against ORHT. I have "Googled" ORHT. They are referred to as "The Eviction Machine" in many sites, favouring the rights of landlords over tenants. I have "Googled" topics such as "ORHT", "ORHT Eviction Machine", "ORHT Mediators", "ORHT Eviction Statistics". You would not believe the horror stories and eviction statistics I found! I have read on some sites, referrals to some landlords as "slumlords" or "scumlords", but there are too many to mention here. I personally like both terms, for my own situation, epsecially with the "bullying and harassment" and looming eviction threat I am receiving, because of this blog.

In Ontario under the TPA, it is illegal for a landlord to enter a unit or apartment, without a 24 hour written notice, unless there is an emergency (e.g. a fire or a water leak). From what I have seen, this is not what actually happens. It seems to me, through personal experiences (I have the wounds and scars from the bloody battles to prove it!), that landlords find ways to get around this. It also seems to me, that ORHT lets them get away with these and other infractions and/or violations, of the TPA.

On December 19, 2000, I filed a complaint against Homestead Land Holdings with the ORHT (File Number EAT-02346). There were three separate occasions, on which the superintendent (Elsie Davis) attempted to enter my apartment without my prior knowledge or consent. How do I know this, you may ask? Well, I was in bed, at home each time AND I caught her red-handed. There could have been even many more times that she entered the apartment when I was not home, but I have no way of finding out that information. On one of these occasions, her boss Cheryl Lambert was with her. There was yet another occasion, on December 20/00 when she and her boss Cheryl Lambert did enter my apartment, without my prior knowledge or consent, while I was out. Details of these illegal entries are all listed below.:

THE FIRST OCCURRENCE was in the late summer or early autumn of 2000. Elsie left a note on my door, asking me to call her. When I did, we made arrangements for her to come to the apartment. Shortly after that, she arrived with a workman, who inspected the area for signs of water damage around my living room windows, finding none or not telling me he had found some. They told me there had been a leak near the living room windows in the apartment below mine. I was advised that external repairs to the building's siding were to be performed early the following week. After that, someone may need to caulk above the living room windows. This was on a Thursday or Friday afternoon, and the work was to be done the following Monday or Tuesday. I told Elsie, okay, let me know.

Approximately three weeks later, I was in bed when I heard someone using a key to open my deadbolt lock. Except for the superintendent, no one else had a key to my apartment. A previous tenant had installed a keyless sliding bolt, instead of a chain lock, that could only be locked from the inside. If this lock had not been engaged, immediate access would have been gained to my apartment. I grabbed a robe and ran to the door. Standing before me were Elsie, a Homestead property manager (her boss) Cheryl Lambert, and a workman. I asked what the hell (not the exact word I used) they were doing. I was extremely upset, livid, and felt totally violated. Cheryl pulled me aside. She said that Elsie told her I have given her permission to enter the apartment when she was here three weeks earlier. I advised Cheryl that, in no uncertain terms would I give anyone permission to enter my apartment at an unspecified future date, especially for a speculative reason (she had stated on the previous visit that someone may have to return to caulk around the windows). I added that, since I had not received a note or a phone call from Homestead or it's representatives, and the siding work had been completed three weeks earlier, I had assumed that no one had to enter my apartment. I reminded them that they were supposed to provide me with a legally-required 24 hour written notice for non-emergent repairs. What a joke, they know that the ORHT will let them get away with anything! It helps to have political allies, like an MPP. All they have to do is verbally perjure themselves, make sure the tenant cannot obtain a copy of the audiotape(s) of the hearing, and (above all) ensure that none of their testimony is written and legally submitted (no paper trace or tangible proof).

THE SECOND OCCURRENCE was on Friday, Dec. 8/00 at approximately 9 - 9:30 a.m. Again, I was startled to be awakened by someone repeatedly opening the deadbolt lock and pushing against the door. Entry was not gained, because the sliding lock was engaged. When I got to the door, no one was there (but I did see Elsie entering the elevator).

THE THIRD OCCURRENCE was on Thursday, Dec. 14/00. I was again awakened by the sound of someone repeatedly unlocking the deadbolt and pushing against the door. As before, I grabbed a robe and ran to the door. This time, when I opened it, I was confronted by Elsie. She said that she was planning to tape a note to the "outside" of my door. NOW WHY WOULD SHE HAVE TO UNLOCK AND OPEN MY DOOR IN ORDER TO LEAVE A NOTE FOR ME ON THE OUTSIDE OF MY DOOR??? She indicated a piece of paper that she was holding, but did not present it to me. It could have been a grocery list, for all I know. Also, she did not have any tape, which she would need to affix the note to the door.

WHEN I ASKED HER IF SHE HAD BEEN THE ONE WHO HAD TRIED TO ENTER MY APARTMENT ON DECEMBER 8, 2000, SHE CONFESSED THAT SHE HAD. She said that a repair had been made to the heating system on December 8 and she was there to check the radiator. Bear in mind that, it was SIX (6) days before this that the alleged repair had been made. I told her that, at any time in interim, if there had been no heat in the apartment, I would have contacted her. Also, at any time during that period, she could have telephoned me (she had my phone number - my telephone call display showed that she called me on Sept. 23/00), left a note on (or under) my door, knocked on my door to see me (I had been home all week - day and night), left a note in my mailbox, or even left a note on my car. When she became superintendent, I filled out an information form, which included my telephone number and details about my car. She said the previous superintendent had destroyed tenant records. If she had misplaced the number or other information, Homestead's office had all the information on file as well. No excuse.....

As I stated, I filed the complaint with ORHT on Dec. 19/00. As instructed by the ORHT, I attempted to present the superintendent with the Notice of Hearing. I had to personally deliver it to the Landlord or its representative. She refused to accept it. I telephoned Cheryl Lambert to advise her what had transpired. Not only did Elsie refuse to accept the documents, she also became impertinent and argumentative. At first, she vehemently denied unlocking my deadbolt lock and trying to enter the apartment without my knowledge/consent. Then, in the next breath, she shouted that she had to use her key. Elsie threatened to report me to the Kingston Humane Society, because I have cats, stating that there was no heat in the building and that I endangered them because there was no heat in the apartment. I replied that my heat had never been off! I did not even know there had been heating problems! The windows are very drafty, warped, and should have been replaced years ago (my first complaint about a window, in the second bedroom which "flapped" in the wind until I installed a stick across it diagonally, was 10 years ago). In winter they frost up (cannot see through them - and I am the 5th floor, on the top floor, which should be the warmest because heat rises - but windows on lower floors do not frost up like mine) and freeze shut, so I cannot open them to look outside unless the weather is mild for a few days. If the heat was off in my apartment, I would definitely have noticed. Each superintendent I reported it to said it would be repaired soon, when all the windows were replaced. They replaced some at the front of building in the Spring of 2004 and were to replace the rest in the Fall. The current super told me it will now take 2 to 3 years to replace the rest of the windows. A few months ago they built a new building on Portsmouth Ave. (between 523 and 533 Portsmouth Ave. - their buildings), and have a project for four new buildings on Kingston downtown's waterfront for hundreds of millions of dollars in the works, but won't replace windows in an existing building. Also, it is a 64 unit building. Theoretically, she would have to report the landlord for not providing heat in a building where the owner controls the heat. I reminded her that, during the infamous ice storm of 1998 (which affected Ontario and Quebec), the whole building had been without heat and electricity for days (almost 3 days) and the pipes did not freeze!!!!! As follow-up to the conversation, I sent a letter to Cheryl, cc to the ORHT.

THE FOURTH OCCURRENCE was on Dec. 20/00. Cheryl Lambert and Elsie Davis entered my apartment while I was out. I telephoned Cheryl at 11:30 a.m. Cheryl asked me numerous times what it would take to make me happy. She asked if I would cancel the hearing if she provided a letter to me, promising that no one would ever again enter my apartment illegally. My interpretation of that statement was that it was an admission that the superintendent had tried to enter by apartment illegally. That was a mute point - it is illegal for a landlord to enter an apartment without the knowledge or consent of the tenant. Just try to get the ORHT to enforce that law or any law in favour of the tenant! I said I would accept the letter, but not cancel the hearing. She never sent the letter or mentioned it to me again.

Cheryl said that she had a meeting in the building at 2:30 p.m. and could pick up the papers from me. She had also instructed Elsie that she had to accept the documents if I saw her first. She asked if I had a (personal) problem with Elsie or her husband, Arnold Davis. I said I did not like being threatened by Elsie and that the threat was a separate issue from entering the apartment illegally. Also, I added that I may not be a nuclear phycist, but I would have noticed if there were no heat in the apartment.

When I refused her attempts to coerce me into canceling the hearing, she got nasty (her whole demeanor changed - like Jeckyl and Hyde) and said that she would have a whole bunch of professionals testify on her behalf, that I did not stand a chance at the hearing. She said she would get the furnace repairman to say the pipes would freeze and burst, if Elsie had not entered my apartment. I told her that it sounded like she was pulling together the equivalent of the "O. J. Simpson Dream Team", but I refused to submit to hear threats and cancel the hearing.

I told Cheryl that I had to run a couple of errands that afternoon and make a photocopy of my Dec. 19 letter to her. She advised me to leave the papers with Elsie if I went out.

At 12:45 p.m. I phoned Cheryl's office. I left a message with the receptionist and on Cheryl's voice mail that I was going out and that I was leaving the papers with Elsie. I also taped a note for Cheryl, to my door, telling her that I had given the papers to Elsie and that I would try to return home before 3:00 pm. (her meeting with Elsie was at 2:30). Cheryl had told me that if I was not back before she left the building, she would not wait to speak with me.

At 4:00 p.m., I returned home. The note had been removed from my door, indicating that Cheryl had taken it. WHEN I PUT THE KEY IN THE LOCK TO OPEN IT, I REALIZED IN HORROR THAT IT WAS ALREADY UNLOCKED. I entered my apartment cautiously. Upon inspection, the only thing I noticed "out of the ordinary" was that my toilet seat was up. When I leave the apartment, I ALWAYS close the lid on the toilet seat. Why do I do that? Well, it is just a habit, just like making sure lights etc. are turned off and water is turned off. I guess I am a bit obsessive/compulsive about making sure things are turned off, especially the water and electrical items, when I go out.

At 4:07 p.m., I spoke with my neighbour, who was exiting his apartment. His apartment door is only a couple of inches away from my door. Our apartments share a common wall. The walls in this building are "paper thin". I told him that I had gone out at 1:00 p.m. and returned at 4:00, and asked if he had heard anyone in my apartment. He said that he heard me leave and that he heard me check the door, to ensure that it was locked. He heard me return home. During my absence, he heard my door open and close a couple of times shortly before I arrived home. He did not open his door to see who it was, because he was getting ready for work. As I was entering the driveway to the building, Cheryl was leaving in her car, so she had been at my apartment not long before I arrived. He also stated that on a previous occasion, he had seen Elsie trying to use her key to open my door, and that she had advised him that she had my prior consent to enter the apartment. He had mentioned this to me on a previous occasion, as well. ALSO OF NOTE, AT NO TIME DURING HER TENURE IN THIS BUILDING HAD I EVER GIVEN HER PERMISSION TO ENTER MY APARTMENT WHEN I WAS NOT THERE. He told me that if I called the police, he would act as my witness. He was going to work, but they could see him when he returned home later that evening.

I called the police twice, but they did not arrive until more than five hours later. They said that it was not a police matter, if the landlord entered the apartment without my knowledge/consent, that I would have to complain to the ORHT. They also said that a previous tenant could have a key. I advised them that I moved here in August, 1994 and that this was the first break-in and the first time I arrived home to find my door unlocked. I was out for three hours. How would a previous tenant know I was out at all? I added that a previous superintendent had changed my lock in 1998 and that only the superintendent had a key. I have never had roommate(s) and had never given the key or a copy to anyone else. As of today, I only have one copy of the key myself, never having made any duplicates. The officers said that maybe the neighbour heard another door opening down the hallway, but the closest door is 30 feet or more away from my door). There is no mistaking that my door, which is only a couple of inches from the neighbour's door, was opened. They refused to get involved.

The next day at 10:30 a.m. (Dec. 21/00), I telephoned Cheryl. I advised her that I had called the police and that they went to see Elsie afterwards (they did not report to me after seeing Elsie). When I told her I found the door unlocked, she said I must have left it unlocked. I have never left my home unlocked in my life. At 40+ I have locked my door many times, when going out! I advised her that I had a witness who heard me double-check (turn the knob and shake the door - the neighbour has a habit of doing that to his door too) that I had locked the deadbolt. Cheryl admitted that she had taken the note I left taped to the door. She tried to say that she knocked on my door and that must have been misinterpreted as opening/closing the door. Remember, the neighbour said the door was opened/closed a couple of times. Knocking would have only taken a few seconds. Also, the neighbour did not hear someone knocking at my door.

Cheryl demanded that I tell her who had reported hearing someone open/close my apartment door. I refused to give her that information. He had only given permission to divulge his identity to the police.

The ORHT Hearing was held on the morning of January 2, 2001. Cheryl was in France, but she sent an Affidavit. At the beginning of the hearing, Fudge presented what he called the sworn affidavit. When MacInnis asked whether the witness testimony would corroborate the affidavit, he said that he believed that it would. When the transcript is online, you will see for yourself. She lied in her affidavit by stating that I had given Elsie permission to enter the apartment to repair a water leak (1st occurrence). She said she advised me that I would be given 24 hours notice for entry in the future unless there is an emergency (this is required by law anyway, so she was doing me no favour). She also lied by stating that entry had to be gained to my apartment on December 7th and 14th (it was actually the 8th and 14th) to bleed the radiator system of air after repairs had been made. Elsie told me on the 14th she only needed to check the radiator to see if there was heat, and did not even mention or look for air intake valves. She only touched the radiator in the living room, to see if it was warm. I was personally advised, by the Property Standards Officer (the building inspector) for the City of Kingston, Ontario, that there are no air intake valves in any of the 64 rental units plus the super's apartment (which are located from the basement to the 5th floor - over 6 levels) in this building. If the heating system pipes had to be bled of air, it had to be done from the roof, where the valves are located.

The heating contractor (Maurice Theirran) lied, under sworn testimony, that the pipes would have burst if he had been unable to enter the apartment to bleed the valves. He said that he was the contractor who had been maintaining the system, at that time, for the previous 15 years. Do you think he should have known the air intake valves were on the roof, if he self-admittedly was the professional contractor who personally maintained the heating system? He was not with the super when she unlocked my door those two times in December. He said he sent Davis to my door on the 7th, but it was the 8th that she unlocked the door, and again on the 14th.

Elsie lied under sworn testimony. She said that was looking for air intake valves in my apartment, and the other three corner units. I know she did not enter my immediate neighbour's unit. She said she did not enter a unit at the opposite end of the building, because she was afraid of their big German Shepherd (they only had a tiny puppy, a small breed of dog, which she did not fear and used to pet). She said she went back there when they got home from work. She said she did not have my telephone number. (Even if she misplaced it, she could not left a note or gotten my number from the rental office.) When you read the transcript of the tapes, in a separate post, you will see how she contradicts herself several times. At one point she said that she personally checked the valves in two units, and later asked the man in 512 to check the one in his kitchen cupboard. She said he told her it was working and not corroded. Later on she said that she did not know whatit was! All of this is on the hearing tapes and soon will be in a separate post in March.

Cheryl's boss, Jim Minnes attended, but did not provide testimony.

The adjudicator of the hearing was Ian MacInnis, Member of the ORHT. Because of the perjured testimony and affidavit, he awarded judgment to the Landlord. He also ordered me to pay for their legal costs, but advised me that only 50% was allowed by law. Knowing this and the system well in advance, Homestead submitted a padded bill for $150 per hour times 5.5 hours. They were granted $75 per hour times 5.5 hours.

As soon as I returned home from the hearing, I contacted the office of their legal beagle, a Bailiff named Paul J. Fudge. A female, who works at his office and answered the phone, advised me that they only worked for landlords in such cases (ORHT Hearings and Tenant/Landlord disputes) and that his rate was only $75 per hour. At many points in the hearing, I felt that the adjudicator was working for the landlord. At one point, he said, "If you have been living there since 1994, then why are you making trouble for the landlord now?" Does that sound like something an impartial adjudicator should say? I replied that this was the first time that I had "caught" a superintendent trying to enter my apartment illegally. Obviously, I could not state whether such incidents had occurred previously, whenever I was out of the building, and advised him of that as well.

I left the hearing as soon as it ended and went to the ORHT office, to appeal the decision. I was advised that I could not appeal until I received the written Order from the ORHT. The morning's hearing had been taped, onto 3 one hour audiocassettes, both sides of each cassette. The ORHT tried to force me to buy all three tapes ($15 each), because they said my hearing could be on any of the tapes. I could not even afford the $30 at that time, and told them so. There was no way I could afford yet another $15.

I advised them that my hearing was the last of the day and that it was on tapes 2 and 3, explaining that I had watched as MacInnis changed the cassettes and turned them over. I filled out an order form and paid the money. On the OHRT purchase order form, I indicated that I needed the tapes, because I needed the verbal proof that the superintendent and the heating contractor had perjured themselves IN ORDER TO FILE AN APPEAL. I DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH MORE SPECIFIC I COULD HAVE BEEN, IN TRYING TO LET THEM KNOW JUST HOW IMPORTANT THE TAPES WERE, TO THE APPEAL. I also expressed this verbally to the staff.

When I finally received the tapes on Jan. 24/01, they were the wrong tapes. I ordered tapes 2 and 3, but received tapes 1 and 2. I immediately mailed a letter the ORHT demanding the send the tape # 3 and an explanation in writing as to why they sent the wrong tape. They never replied and I never got the tapes. Several times after that, they phoned, but I would not take their calls. They only accepted written evidence and now I would only accept written evidence.

I contacted the Investigations Unit of the Ministry of Housing for Ontario. I was advised that they could only act on written testimony, that had been received and officially stamped with the ORHT seal. No evidence provided by Homestead, except Cheryl Lambert's affidavit, was in writing. All of the perjured statements were oral. I explained that the OHRT refused to provide me with the oral evidence I had paid for. Because my copy of the affidavit was unsigned and not stamped by ORHT, they would not do anything, even though there was false testimony on it. When I listened to the hearing tapes on March 12th, I realized that Ian MacInnis stated that he had not yet accepted the affidavit into tendered evidence, even though Fudge said it was a sworn affidavit. The contents of the affidavit are the same, either way.

I contacted my local Minister of the Provincial Parliament, John Gerretsen. On Jan. 4, Chris his assistant told me to photocopy my documents, write a detailed summary, and forward them to him. I copied everything and provided a 20 page hand-written synopsis, and a covering letter, which I sent by Registered Mail to his office on Jan. 17/00. I sent another letter on Jan. 24 about the ORHT's refusal to send the correct audiotapes. They would not do anything to help. The following month, my documents were returned, with only a hand-written note on a pink post-it note from the assistant, Chris. The note read: "John asked me to return these papers to you. He has kept photo copies of everything. Unfortunately, there really isn't anything more he can suggest at this time.".

John had never made suggestions or done anything to help. GUESS WHAT: Gerretsen had been the Mayor of Kingston for years. Then he became MPP directly from that position and this was his second term as MPP. In 2003, he was elected for his 3rd Term and, in October was appointed by McGuinty as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. One of his major political contributors/supporters is, you may have guessed it, HOMESTEAD LAND HOLDINGS LIMITED. DURING EVERY ELECTION, ON THE PROPERTY OF EACH OF THEIR NEARLY 50 APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN KINGSTON, THEY DISPLAY GERRETSEN'S CAMPAIGN SIGNS. THE POLLS IN MY DISTRICT ARE HELD EACH TIME AT ONE OF THEIR APARTMENT BUILDINGS. IN THE LAST PROVINCIAL ELECTION, I DROVE AROUND TOWN AND SAW THAT GERRETSEN'S CAMPAIGN SIGNS WERE AGAIN DISPLAYED ON ALL HOMESTEAD'S PROPERTIES. GERRETSEN ALSO USED TO BE A LAWYER, BEFORE ENTERING MUNICIPAL AND PROVINCIAL POLITICS, AND I UNDERSTAND IS A FRIEND OF THE SMITHS.

Since then, I have filed complaints (about the ORHT and the MPP) with the Premier of Ontario, Ernie Eaves. His name and address was listed on the ORHT website as a person to contact with complaints about the ORHT. He wrote me on Jan. 23/03, refusing to help, stating that ORHT was a self-governing agency. THAT'S GOOD - A SELF-GOVERNING GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO OFFICE. I contacted Premier Dalton McGuinty. He wrote back on Feb. 24/04, and also refused to help, for the same reasons. He directed me to the Ombudsman's office. I wrote to the Ombudsman's office at the address provided by McGuinty. They contacted me and told me they could not help. If they performed an investigation, they could only make suggestions, and nothing else, sort of like a mediator. They also said too much time had passed and the audiocassette evidence would have been destroyed a long time ago.

For her part, by perjuring herself at the ORHT Hearing in January/01, Elsie and husband Arnold Davis, very soon afterwards got promoted by Homestead, to be superintendents at a larger apartment building with a juicy raise. They are still there at 130 Parkway. Arnold filed some sort of bogus Worker's Comp. claim, saying he injured his foot. As soon as his claim was approved, he stopped limping. What a miracle. John Gerretsen, MPP, with the support of Homestead Land Holdings Limited, was elected to a third term of office as Member of Provincial Parliament. In October, 2003, McGuinty appointed him as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

UPDATE RE ARNOLD DAVIS (PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH). I WAS WAITING FOR THE ELEVATOR, IN THE BASEMENT LEVEL OF MY BUILDING, ON FEB. 18/06. I WATCHED AS DAVIS ENTERED THE HALLWAY AT THE OPPOSITE END OF THE BUILDING (HE STILL USES HIS PASS KEY FROM 2001, WHICH I UNDERSTAND HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE. ACCORDING TO MARTIN WOOCK AND HOMESTEAD, WHEN STAFF LEAVE A BUILDING, THEY HAVE TO RETURN ALL KEYS TO THEM.). HE HAD USED HIS PASS KEY TO ENTER THE BUILDING. HE WAS VISIBLY COLD AND COMMENTED ON HOW COLD IT WAS OUTSIDE, AS WE RODE UP ON THE ELEVATOR. HE WENT TO VISIT BILL GILBERT AND DAVE VANHOOSER IN 509, FOR A BEER (OR MORE). I DID NOT WITNESS HIM LIMPING AT ALL. IN FACT, EVERY TIME I HAVE SEEN HIM OVER THE YEARS SINCE HE FILED A WORKER'S COMPENSATION INJURY CLAIM (Now WSIB, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of Ontario), I HAVE NEVER SEEN HIM LIMP. I SEE HIM FREQUENTLY (several times a week)ON HOMESTEAD-OWNED PROPERTY ON PARKWAY, WHETHER HE IS DOING CHORES, WALKING A DOG, OR WHATEVER.

TOXIC MOULD FOUND IN MY APARTMENT ON DECEMBER 26, 2004:

Around dinner-time on December 26, 2004, something fell behind a nightstand in my bedroom. I had to move it. I was horrified to find toxic mould. Upon further inspection, I found thick, furry toxic mould, covering the walls behind the furniture, that was close to the two outside walls. This is a corner unit apartment, on the top floor. There are two outside walls in the master bedroom. In the corner of the ceiling and the edges of the ceiling adjacent to the outside walls, there were a couple of spots of mould. It was not covered like the walls and closet. It covered the area behind my armoire, the headboard of my bed, and my two nightstands. Immediately, I dragged what I could out of the bedroom (the dresser, armoire and a nightstand). I then called the super (Bill Gilbert), who inspected the whole apartment for mould. While he was here, I opened the bedroom closet, finding one wall and part of the ceiling covered with mould. There was also water on the floor of the closet. Much of the clothing, bedding (including a new duvet, down pillows, new towels that were gifts, 2 new suitcases) and other items were totally destroyed by the mould. Gilbert refused to look at the destroyed items, telling me to show Lambert, whenever she did her inspection. I VIDEOTAPED THE ACTUAL TOXIC MOULD. I HAVE THE ORIGINAL VIDEO ON THE 8 MM CASSETTE.

I telephoned Doug Werden, the Property Standards Officers immediately on the morning, when the office opened after Christmas. He arrived here in less than an hour, on December 29th, and took photos of the mould damage. He also inspected the whole apartment, noting the squalor. He also viewed the damage to my personal items.

On December 30th, Lambert, Mr. Werden and Gilbert completed an inspection. Mr. Werden ordered Lambert to not only treat the mould and repaint the room, but to also replace the disintegrating asbestos floor tiles, that I had been begging them to replace for over 10 1/2 years. He was advised by Lambert that all of the bedroom windows were to be replaced in the Spring, along with the rest of the windows at the rear of the building. He then ordered her to replace my windows first, when the window replacements finally began. Even though the living room windows were not to be replaced until the following year, he also ordered her to replace my living room windows at the same time (When this was done in June/05, my living room windows were the only ones replaced of all the windows at the two ends end of the building; the building's front windows were replaced Spring 2004 and the rear windows were replaced in June 2005.). He also ordered that the bathtub be refinished, the kitchen counter and sink be replaced (they only replaced the basket in the sink), and some other work. I was advised that a painter would treat the mould and paint the room on Dec. 31, 2004. This is when the painter first reported that the rad was not working. Homestead repeatedly refused to fix the rad, until Jan. 12. When I told Mr. Werden, he ordered them to fix the rad immediately.

During the inspection, I asked Lambert to help me replace the items that were destroyed by the mould. Without hesitation, she said yes. I tried to show her everything that was damaged, but she literally brushed me off, as though I was not even there. Some time weeks later, I talked to Mr. Werden about the damage to my personal items. He told me that he remembered all the items, especially the clothing, because I had shown them all to him as well on December 29th, when he took the mould photos. SEE correspondences below: I refer to that encounter with Lambert in my Nov. 6, 2005 e-mail to Woock, where I also ask him to compensate for the items that were stolen/poisoned on Sept. 8, 2005. In his Nov. 8, 2005 reply, he says that he will not compensate for the items stolen/poisoned during the break-in. He also refuses to even discuss compensation for the mould damage (which was in excess of $6,200). I had requested compensation in other correspondences, but he either refused or ignored the requests, depending on his reply.

The items that were destroyed by the mould were foul-smelling and the toxic mould was seriously aggravating my asthma. I needed to get rid of them quickly, so I could begin to breathe again. On the afternoon of Dec. 30, I phoned Lambert. I told her that I had to discard the toxic-mould destroyed items right away, because they were seriously aggravating my asthma. She asked if I had showed them to Gilbert. I said yes, but he did not pay attention to them, telling me I had to show them to Lambert at the inspection. I tried to remind her, how she had brushed me off when I tried to show them to her at the inspection, but she curtly interrupted me and said to go ahead.

I had no one to witness all of the items, and could not count on what Gilbert or Lambert would admit to seeing, so I set up my Sanyo 8 mm camcorder. I placed the videocamera on my nightstand and let it run continuously on record, videotaping myself as I took each item, piece by piece, and placed it in trash bags. I did not turn the camera off, until I had finished bagging the items. I feared that someone would try to say that I tampered with the recording in some way. I still have the original recording, on the 8 mm cassette, just in case there are questions about the authenticity of the tape. I tied up the bags, placing them on the bed and floor, only turning the camera off when I was about to take the bags and other items, out to the garbage bins.

EVEN THOUGH I WAS WEARING AN OLD T-SHIRT AND PANTS WHILE DOING THIS, YOU CAN SEE THE BRUISES ON MY ARMS, THAT I WAS AFFLICTED WITH WHEN PUSHING THE FURNITURE OUT OF THE ROOM. WHAT THE CAMERA DID NOT SHOW, WAS THAT MY WHOLE BODY WAS COVERED WITH BRUISES, ESPECIALLY MY CHEST, STOMACH, AND LEGS. I HAD DIFFICULTY BREATHING AND WAS IN CONSTANT PAIN.

On January 4, 2005, Mr. Werden asked me to compile a list of all the necessary repairs and give it to Homestead. He advised me to date it, indicate that I was giving a copy to him, so that the landlord would know that it was on his authorization and to ensure that they would carry out the repairs. Some of the repairs listed were: replace the disintegrating asbestos tiles throughout (in a few areas, there were places where the tiles had lifted years ago leaving bare floor); replace the kitchen counter and sink (they refused to replace the sink, just the sink basket); refinish the tub; replace the bathroom sink and turn on the hot water tap that had been shut off for over a year; replace the bathroom door; replace two bedroom doors (but they never replaced them, just fixed the hinges on one and painted the other); fix a tub leak, install new switch plate covers (previous tenant had wall-papered them and it was never removed), etc. Afterwards, I requested and eventually got them to install closet doors on the coat closet (never had doors); install a ceiling fan in the dining area (they had been installing them in other apartments for years). install a toilet roll dispenser (never had one in the bathroom); install a towel bar on the new bathroom door; paint the bathroom, hallway, kitchen, dining/living room. Only painting the master bedroom was on the initial list. The apartment had not been painted, since before I moved here in 1994, almost 11 years earlier. The two smaller bedrooms were not touched, except to replace the windows in June.

Those repairs were made over the next two months. The mould came back again, and the painter had to return to retreat the mould and repaint the room on January 12th. That was when the Williams Brothers advised Gilbert the superintendent, who in turn advised me, that there was a leak from the roof. Water was blowing under the flashing. This caused the mould. The windows were not replaced until June 29, 2005. They were supposed to be replaced in the Spring. Actually, all the supers had been telling me since 1998, that they were supposed to be replaced "the following year", which is the excuse they continually used for not replacing the second bedroom window, across which I had placed a stick diagonally across the top half, to stop it from "flapping in the wind". I have a photo of that window, as well as video footage of it.

It was not until mid-January, that I could finally return to my bedroom. In the interim, for nearly a month, I had to sleep on a small two-seater patio couch, that was set up in my living room. Even though I am short, this was far too short for me and was very uncomfortable. The bed and other nightstand also had to be crowded into my living room, while the bedroom tiles were being replaced. Before finding the mould, I telephoned Telehealth Ontario, because I had serious difficulties breathing, wondering why my steroid inhaler and fast-acting inhalers were not working. I have since received the Telehealth Ontario written report. I could not even walk across the room, without experiencing serious shortness-of-breath and gasping for air. I had gotten very ill, from the mould, and when I finally got a chance during renovations, to see my physician, he had to treat me with antibiotics for a very serious lung infection. I have a letter, from my physician.

HOMESTEAD HAS NEVER OFFERED A SINGLE PENNY, TO COMPENSATE FOR THE MANY PERSONAL ITEMS THAT WERE TOTALLY DESTROYED BY THE TOXIC MOULD, SOME OF THEM GIFTS, WHICH RESULTED FROM THE WATER BLOWING UNDER THE FLASHING, WHICH IN TURN RESULTED FROM THE STATE OF DISREPAIR OF THE ROOF. I HAVE AN ESTIMATED COST OF REPLACEMENT LIST FOR THOSE ITEMS, IN EXCESS OF $6,200 (17 SILK BLOUSES, 2 BRAND NEW 32" UPRIGHT PULLMAN SUITCASES, 11 BRAND NEW DESIGNER BATH SHEETS, A NEW DUVET/DOWN PILLOWS, DOWN SLIPPERS, 9 PAIRS OF SLACKS, 6 SUMMER CAPRI PANTS, AN ATTACHÉ, PORTFOLIO, JEWELLERY ARMOIRE THAT WAS THE FINAL GIFT FROM MY HUSBAND BEFORE HE DIED FROM CANCER, VERY EXPENSIVE WINDOW COVERINGS, ETC.). THEY ALSO NEVER OFFERED A PENNY IN COMPENSATION FOR THE HARM TO MY HEALTH, DIRECTLY RESULTING FROM THE MOULD, FOR THE SEVERE EXACERBATION OF MY ASTHMA, A SERIOUS LUNG INFECTION, SHEER EXHAUSTION, AND THE EXCRUCIATING PHYSICAL PAIN I ENDURED FOR THE TWO MONTHS, WHILE REPAIRS WERE BEING MADE. BECAUSE I CONTINUALLY HAD TO MOVE FURNITURE AND OTHER ITEMS AROUND, WHILE THE REPAIRS WERE BEING MADE AND FOR THE PAINTING TO BE DONE, I WAS CONSTANTLY IN EXCRUCIATING PHYSICAL PAIN FROM MY NECK TO MY TOES, AND WAS UNABLE TO GET VERY MUCH SLEEP!!!

UPDATE FROM KITTEN ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2006: HERE IS THE EVICTION NOTICE I RECEIVED TODAY.: I received an eviction notice from my landlord. I shall transcribe the entire document, in verbatim, including their obvious spelling errors..

Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal: Notice to Terminate a Tenancy Early Form N5

Termination Date: You must move out of the rental unit indentified above on or before 02/03/66) (day/month/year)

Part A Reasons for this notice:

2. "You, your guest or another occupant of the rental unit has substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex by the landlord or other tenants or has interfered with another lawful right, privilege or interest of the landlord or other tenants.".
End of Part A

I reviewed my lease, "with a fine-tooth comb" and found no clause that even remotely resembles this statement.

Part B: Details About the Reasons for this Notice:

"ON OCTOBER 10, 2005, THE TENANT MS. S____ D___COMMUNICATED TO THE LANDLORD THAT SOMEONE HAD BROKEN INTO HER APARTMENT USING A KEY. DURING SUBSEQUENT MULTIPLE COMMUNICATIONS, MS. D___ BECAME MORE ADAMANT AND ACCUSATORY THAT IT WAS THE LANDLORDS SITE STAFF WHOM ENTERED HER APARTMENT. THE LANDLORD HAS MADE REPEATED REQUESTS TO MS. D___ TO INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE KINGSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT AND TO DATE HAS NOT BEEN MADE AWARE OF ANY OFFICIIAL OUTCOME ON THE MATTER. MS. D___ CONTINUES TO COMMUNICATE UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS CONCERNING THE LANDLORD AND IT'S EMPLOYEES BY POSTING SUCH DETAILS ON A PUBLIC INTERNET WEB SITE.

ON NOVEMBER 15, 2004, IT CAME TO THE LANDLORDS ATTENTION THAT A WEBSITE, kingstonkittens.tripod.com, HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY MS. D___ TO PUBLICALLY DENOUNCE AND HARASS THE LANDLORD AND IT'S EMPLOYEES WITH MALICIOUS UNTRUTHS. THE WEBSITE WAS REMOVED BY THE SERVICE PROVIDER LYCOS INC. WITH INTERVENTION BY THE LANDLORD, AS IT WAS HARASSING, LIBELOUS, DEFAMATORY AND CONTRAVENED THE P.I.P.E.D.A ACT. MS. ____ WAS ISSUED A LETTER DATED DECEMBER 8, 2004, FROM THE LANDLORDS LEGAL COUNCIL.

ON FEBRUARY 3, 2006, IT CAME TO THE LANDLORDS ATTENTION THAT ANOTHER WEBSITE, kingstonkittens5.blogspot.com HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY MS. ____. THE WEBSITE CONTAINS IDENTICAL COPY TO THE PREVIOUS SITE KINGSTONKITTENS.TRIPOD.COM, WITH ADDITIONAL REFERENCES TO FURTHER UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS. THE CONTENT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HARASSING, LIBELOUS, DEFAMATORY AND CONTRAVENES THE P.I.P.E.D.A ACT. THIS BREACH MAY BE CORRECTED BY THE TENANT CEASING AND DESISTING IMMEDIATELY ANY FORM OF HARASSMENT TOWARDS THE LANDLORD."
End of Part B

This eviction notice was slipped under my apartment door this afternoon. Someone (a tall male, whom I think was Martin Woock; who was accompanied by a female, whom I think was his assistant Kim Adams; on my TV, via the videocamera in the lobby, I watched them exit the building through the front door, mere seconds after leaving my door and entering the elevator; the elevator made only one stop after they entered it) had been repeatedly "pounding" on my door in four (4) separate, distinct series of "pounding", which rather alarmed and scared me, which is why I refused to open the door. I can only surmise and hypothesize that they were pounding very loudly on my door, so they would attract the attention of neighbours, so that they could intimidate and embarrass me when they loudly announced that they were presenting me with an eviction notice. Through the paper thin walls, I could hear my next-door neighbour, Danny, comment on the loud door-"pounding". I received the following e-mail, from Woock, at 2:56 p.m. (I am guessing it was sent to me immediately upon their arrival at the 80 Johnson St. rental office.):

E-mail from Woock, regarding the eviction notice on Feb. 10, 06:

----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Woock
To: S____ D____
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 2:56 PM
Subject: Document Delivery
Dear Ms. D___:

Please be advised that we were at your door today, February 10, 2006, at approximately 2:30 p.m., to deliver a document, but were unable to deliver it personally as there was no answer at the door. The document was served under your door, and we trust that you have received it. Please contact this office if you have any questions in this regard.

Sincerely,

Martin Woock
Kim Adams
End of e-mail from Woock

P.I.P.E.D.A. is the Federal Government of Canada "Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act". I initially contacted the federal government under "Freedom of Information" in the telephone book at 1-800-267-0441, from which a female referred me to the Federal Government Privacy Commissioner at 1-800-282-1376. From their website http://www.privcom.gc.ca/ I followed the links, then accessed and read the entire copy of P.I.P.E.D.A. (at URL http://laws.justice.gc.ca/P-8.6/text.html) and could find absolutely no information or clause within the Act to substantiate the landlord's claim that I have acted in contravention of P.I.P.E.D.A., in any format whatsoever, because of the contents of my personal blog (hence the address blogspot.com) OR my original website at http://kingstonkittens.tripod.com which they forced tripod.com to shut down. In summary and more specifically, they allege in the eviction notice (ORHT Form N5, Notice to Terminate a Tenancy Early) that the information contained on my personal blog, this personal blog at http://www.kingstonkittens5.blogspot.com/, is in contravention of P.I.P.E.D.A. I then telephoned the Government of Canada Privacy Commissioner, at the number I mentioned above (1-800-282-1376). I was advised that I did not find any information in P.I.P.E.D.A because a personal blog is not under the jurisdiction of P.I.P.E.D.A. or regulated by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act in any way at all. I am not affiliated with any corporation or organization. A personal blog is just that, personal information.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE LANDLORD REFERRED TO MY BREAK-IN, IN THE EVICTION NOTICE DATED FEB. 10, 2006. I HAD NEVER PREVIOUSLY POSTED ANY INFORMATION, WHATSOEVER, REGARDING THE BREAK-IN ON MY BLOG. On October 30, 2005, I sent my rent cheque, with several receipts to Woock to replace some of the items stolen/potentially poisoned by the intruder. I will transcribe, in verbatim, his November 1, reply. I notified the landlord that I had been in contact with the Kingston Police Department on numerous occasions. I sent an e-mail to Martin Woock, on November 30, 2004 (the most recent e-mail concerning the break-in that I sent to him, for which he never even bothered to reply).

FOLLOWING IS JUST A SMALL SAMPLE OF SOME OF THE MORONIC CORRESPONDENCES, THAT I HAVE "ENJOYED" (I NEARLY CHOKED ON THAT!), RATHER HAD TO TOLERATE FROM WOOCK: I AM INCLUDING 4 CORRESPONDENCES: (1) NOV. 1/05 LETTER FROM WOOCK; (2) MY NOV. 6/05 E-MAIL TO WOOCK; (3) NOV. 8/05 REPLY TO MY NOV. 6 E-MAIL, FROM WOOCK; (4) MY NOV. 30/05 E-MAIL TO WOOCK. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY MORE THAN THESE.:

(1) NOVEMBER 1, 2005 LETTER FROM WOOCK, WHICH I HAVE TRANSCRIBED IN VERBATIM, FROM HOMESTEAD LETTERHEAD, VIA CANADA POST:

Re: Your Letter of October 30th and cheque #034

Dear Ms. D___:

We are in receipt of your aforementioned letter and cheque and note the contents thereof.

As indicated in our previous correspondence, most recently October 26th, we believe that you should request an investigation by the Kingston Police to determine whether in fact a "break-in" did occur at your apartment and who was responsible for it. We are quite willing to participate in this and indeed encourage you to proceed as soon as possible.

Until a determination has been made that a break-in has occurred and that Homestead personnel were responsible for it we cannot credit your rent for items you chose to replace and respectfully request that you forward the balance of your rent ($567.36) by return mail. We return herewith your receipts at this time.

Thanking you, Homestead Land Holdings Limited Per Martin Woock, Area Manager; /cr; encl./cc: Cheryl Lambert, Property Manager End of Nov. 1/05 letter from Woock

Do you believe the nerve of this jerk??? He has stated "in writing no less" that he is implying that I am a liar about the break-in!!!!! Food and other items were stolen from my apartment. I had placed a recently purchased, unopened bottle of Boric Acid in the cupboard over my kitchen sink. On inspection right after the break-in, I discovered that the bottle was almost empty. What kind of idiot would I have to be, to imagine having food and other items stolen from my apartment? Did I imagine it, that unopened bottle of boric acid I had placed in the cupboard was nearly empty when I inspected immediately after the break-in? NO, NO, NO!!!!! Just WHO the hell does Woock think he is? Also note, the implication in the last paragraph. When the truth comes out about the break-in, they better be prepared to compensate me, and for FAR more than the value of the stolen/poisoned items.

Two days later, on November 3/05, a notice was slipped under my door, to pay the balance of the rent. I had not even received the above letter via Canada Post yet! Then soon after, the superintendent hand-delivered an EVICTION NOTICE (Notice to Terminate a Tenancy Early for Non-Payment of Rent) dated November 10, 2005 and signed by Cheryl Lambert. I advised the super that I had already mailed my rent balance that morning. My friend at Kingston Coalition Against Poverty (KCAP) advised me to send the cheque. On my cheque, that I made out the evening before and dated November 9th, I wrote: "SUBMITTED UNDER DURESS AND WILL PURSUE MATTER LEGALLY WHEN I PROVE SECURITY BREACH". There is not much room for commentary on those personal cheques! Maybe I should order larger ones next time, ha ha.

(2) MY E-MAIL TO WOOCK DATED NOVEMBER 6, 2005, COPIED DIRECTLY FROM MY MAILBOX:

----- Original Message -----

From: @sympatico.ca

To: mwoock@homestead.on.ca
Cc: ORHT ; John Gerretsen
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 3:55 AM
Subject: Re: your notice

Dear Mr. Woock:

I just received your notice.

After mailing my letter, receipts and November rent cheque directly to you, I accessed my chequing account via telephone banking. My cheque No. 34 cleared my bank on November 3rd, 2005.

Since you deposited my cheque and it cleared the bank, I understood this to be an indicator that you accepted the cheque and receipts as total rent payment for the month of November, 2004, especially since I have always paid my full rent on time (since August 1994)! Otherwise, why would you deposit that particular cheque in the first place, if you were not going to accept it and the receipts as full payment for November's rent? I had not stated that I was sending another cheque, since I specifically stated the purpose of the receipts in my letters of October 30, 2005 (attached below). Also, since the break-in occurred in my apartment, in which someone accessed my apartment using a key, you authorized the current superintendent to change my lock. I have since then found out from other tenants that mine is not the only lock that you have changed for security reasons and that you are in the process of changing all tenant/apartment locks in the building (64 units) and other locks for areas not accessible to tenants have also been changed. In addition, I reiterate from previous correspondences to you, that I have never given a copy of my key to anyone or allowed anyone to copy it. When your then superintendent Peter McDonald changed the lock in 1998, he advised me that there were only 2 master keys to the brand new lock, which he installed. He gave one key to me and kept the other for Homestead, advising me that no one else would have access to my apartment, because the Shlage lock, further adding that it was not even compatible with the master key to the building (Weiser manufactured locks).

I surmise that you are treating this in the same inconsiderate way your office has treated me with respect to the mould damage in my apartment. I found mould, covering the two outside walls and much of the closet, in my master bedroom on December 26th, 2004. The mould was treated and the room painted on December 31st. After the mould returned and the room had to be repainted, you finally hired William's Brothers to inspect the roof. They found and repaired the flashing. The superintendent advised me the same day, very soon after they left, that when windy outside, water had blown under the flashing, through the roof, and into my room. Most of my clothing (including but not limited to almost all of my fine silk - 17 blouses, only several were saved through laundering), bedding (including an expensive white goose down duvet, feather bed, and white goose down pillows that my parents had given my as a birthday/Christmas gift in December, 2003, only the year before), my expensive window coverings, and other personal property were damaged beyond repair and had to be thrown out. Mould literally "eats" through fibers, especially natural fibers such as silk and down feathers. Cheryl Lambert was at my apartment, for an inspection on December 30th, 2004. I specifically asked her then whether she would help me replace these items and she said immediately replied yes. YET, no attempt has been made by her or Homestead Land Holdings to replace any of these items. You have not offered even a mere penny. Why have you not helped replace the damaged items, as Ms. Lambert promised that day, items which by the way would not have been damaged beyond repair, if it were not for the leak from the roof, a structural problem?????

It was only AFTER this mould damage was found, that you finally did some very crucial repairs to my apartment. For nearly 10 1/2 years, I had been begging you to replace the disintegrating asbestos floor tiles and fix the windows, asking each superintendent who has worked here since August 1994 to do these repairs. I even documented them in writing, while at your rental office, in the spring or summer of 1999. By the time you finally replaced them, there were areas where the tiles had disintegrated so much, there was no tile left. I had also requested many times that you fix my windows, which were grossly warped with rotting wooden window boxes, and were drafty enough to "flap" my mini-blinds and even my expensive heavy gauge vinyl blind when they were closed, which consequently made the apartment very cold. In the second bedroom window, I had installed a stick diagonally across the top of the window soon after I moved in, because in wind the outside pane slapped against the inside pane. (I had also listed the window problems in the document I note above in 1999.) Since then, on two occasions, the glass in the inside pane of the master bedroom had to be replaced. When the superintendents inspected the windows, they said it was obvious that I had not broken them, that instead they had broken from the outside. The second time it happened, when McDonald inspected it, he refused to even attempt to remove it, fearing that it would fall out because the frame was so insecure. A window company was called in to remove the glass and repair it. Upon their inspection, the window company employees showed me how the whole window was being held in place by only one bolt near the top of the frame. They had to drill holes and install bolts, in order to secure it to the building. That was in 1998. At that time, I again asked McDonald about fixing the 2nd bedroom window, but it was not done. I was told to leave it until new windows were to be installed. No other super had the problem fixed when I asked them either and the new windows were not installed until June, 2005! There were other problems with the apartment, but the windows and tiles were of the utmost concern, and I had asked (BEGGED) each superintendent, who has worked in this building since August 1994, to have the repairs made, but I was refused each time. Each of the many times I asked Elsie Davis about when the tiles were to be replaced, she kept telling me that it was impossible to get in touch with Don the tile guy, whom I later found out was a Homestead employee, who advised me there had been no trouble contacting him. When he was here, I told him what Davis had said. These vital repairs (and many other repairs) were made by you only after the mould was found and you were directly ordered to complete them by Doug Werden, the Property Standards Officer for the City of Kingston, following his inspection of the apartment after the mould damage was found.

WHY DO YOU REPEATEDLY KICK A DEAD HORSE WHEN IT IS DOWN????????

Sincerely, S____ D___

COPY OF MY OCTOBER 30, 2005 LETTERS ATTACHED BELOW:
October 30, 2005

Martin Woock
Area Manager
Homestead Land Holdings Limited
80 Johnson Street
Kingston, ON K7L 1X7

Dear Mr. Woock:

RE: Break-in at 501 Normandy on Sept. 8, 2005

I had an intuitive feeling, at the last moment before I was to mail my cheque, letter, and receipts, that I should mail the cheque in a separate envelope. The two-page letter to which I refer, is addressed to Martin Woock, and also dated October 30, 2005. Along with that letter, I have enclosed 3 receipts (in the amounts of $488.03, $69.38, and $9.95).
Sincerely,
S____ D___


1 Enclosure: My Cheque No. 034, dated Nov. 1, 2005, in the amount of $54.32

October 30, 2005

Martin Woock
Area Manager
Homestead Land Holdings Limited
80 Johnson Street
Kingston, ON K7L 1X7

Dear Mr. Woock:

RE: Break-in at 501 Normandy on Sept. 8, 2005

I am enclosing receipts, for the items which I have most recently replaced. I still have quite a few items to replace.

After the break-in, I had to throw out everything that was open in the refrigerator, cupboards, and freezer, and even things in the bathroom. I had no way of knowing which items were tampered with and could not take a chance using any of it, especially with my medications. If someone was sleazy and desperate enough to perform such an act, then who knows how they tampered with any open containers. I simply could not chance using any of the items, in light of that situation.

The ONLY other copy of my key WAS HELD EXCLUSIVELY by Homestead Land Holdings Limited, under the supervision of your superintendent. There had been a problem with a previous lock, which was replaced by Peter MacDonald when he was the superintendent, in 1998. He gave me one of the keys and kept the other one for Homestead. I recall that, at the time he replaced the lock, he stated that there were only two keys for that lock, the one which I had and the one which he kept. It was a brand new lock. As I have stated in numerous correspondences with you, I have not given a copy of my key to anyone. Also, I have never had a roommate or even an overnight guest in all my time at Parkway, since August 1994. I do not entertain and have had no one in my apartment, who could have copied my key. Even when my car is being serviced, I only supply the mechanic with keys to my car, removing them from my key ring.

You stated in one of your e-mail correspondences that the previous superintendents no longer had access to the keys. Well, you keep attempting to gloss over the fact that St. Louis WAS IN FACT the ACTING SUPERINTENDENT at the time when this break-in occurred. I had been trying for weeks to catch the burglars on videotape, as I have stated in previous correspondences to you, but apparently the reason why I did not get that opportunity was because you gave St. Louis a new job and moved her to Queen Mary Road.

I am on a fixed income and surely you should try to understand how difficult it has been for me financially. I still have much to replace, especially from my refrigerator (fruit, vegetables, etc. and other things from my cupboards). This ordeal has not only been taxing financially, it has also been extremely stressful and difficult, something which I have copiously explained in previous correspondences to you. At the very least, you could have treated me with someone respect and common courtesy, much like one would expect to be treated as a human. Instead, you have been totally unsympathetic, inconsiderate, and complacent, and even combatant and confrontational at times. You are only concerned with protecting the employee, who abused the privilege of her position and broke into my apartment. I am the innocent victim in all of this and you have treated me horribly. I am sure I do not have to reiterate the complaints I have made against St. Louis (June 3rd domestic disturbance reported to police; June and July when her common-law partner attempted to enter my apartment when drunk; July 1 when I overheard Gilbert tell Rick from mere feet away that I was the one who reported him to police; Marlene walking by the male smoking in the lobby which I videotaped; Marlene walking the dog on extended leash; not responding to the noise complaint against 502). There was definitely motive to retaliate against me and, since she was the acting super at the time, there was also means (access to my key). Add to that even more motive, the fact that she was hired because of her affiliation with Gilbert and his animosity towards me (especially the many complaints I had to file with your office, which I have documented in many correspondences with you, Lambert and Minnes), and you have a perfect recipe for her wishing to retaliate against me.

The enclosed three invoices are: $488.03, $69.38 and $9.95, for a total of $567.36. Subtracted from my usual amount for rent of $621.68, the total is $54.32. You will also find enclosed my personal cheque in the amount of $54.32

Sincerely,
S____ D___
Enclosures: 4

End of November 6, E-Mail to Woock

(3) I SHALL TRANSCRIBE IN VERBATIM, WOOCK'S REPLY TO NOV. 6 E-MAIL, ON HOMESTEAD LETTERHEAD VIA CANADA POST, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2005:

Dear Ms. D___:

We are in receipt of your letter of November 6th and note the contents thereof.

We responded to your previous correspondence on November 1st outlining our position regarding your rent and urging you to proceed with an investigation through the Kingston Police. In the interim we accepted your cheque as part payment and await your remittance of the balance by return mail.

Your letter makes no reference to a proposed meeting with the police and it would appear that you are not prepared to pursue this matter through the authorities. We would welcome such an investigation and once again urge you to contact the police.

The locks in the building are being changed as a matter of due dilligence. This will be done over the next 6 months or so and is not a knee-jerk reaction to your allegations. With respect to the balance of your letter, these matters appear to be historical and were dealt with in the past. We are not prepared to keep raking over the past as many of your letters are want to do, although we welcome any comments or concerns regarding the current states of your apartment or building. They should be directed to your Superintendent or Property Manager for prompt response.

Sincerely, Homestead Land Holdings Limited, Per: Martin Woock, Area Manager; /cr

End of Nov. 8/05 letter from Woock

(4) BEGINNING OF E-MAIL TO MARTIN WOOCK DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2005:

----- Original Message -----
From: _________@sympatico.ca
To: mwoock@homestead.on.ca
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 3:30 PM
Subject: LMR Interest and your Nov. 24th letter
Dear Mr. Woock:

I appreciate the time you took, to explain to me, the methods you employ to calculate LMR interest. I was a little unclear on one point, though. Does this mean that the "current" interest was calculated to March 31st, 2005 or November 30, 2005?

I received your November 24th letter, via Canada Post, yesterday. I still have my videocamera cassette and my VHS copy, from the days on which I set up the camera, when I hoped to obtain indisputable evidence should the party have returned. In fact, my camera is still connected to my VCR! I attempted to file a burglary report on October 18th, but the KPD Dispatcher was curt, to say the least. On November 8th, I spoke with a lady named Allison. She advised me that she was not the Allison at KPD, to whom you referred in a previous e-mail correspondence to me. After I explained all that had happened, she took the report and provided me with KPD Incident #05-37793.

During a follow-up telephone call, which I initiated, I was told that the case had been assigned to a Constable Brewer. Unfortunately, I have not heard from him, at all. I am equally concerned about several factors, not the least of which is the fact that someone entered my apartment, and the potential poisoning of my medications/food/beverages. I have, in my possession the nearly-empty package which contained the contaminant. It originally was a full, unopened container, which I had purchased only weeks earlier and had never opened. Ingestion of this product is very dangerous. I may have unknowingly ingested some of it. I am undergoing medical investigations. If I can get the police to do something with this case, I have items that could be tested (ie: a bottle of distilled water, medications/supplements, non-perishable foods). How can I get them to pursue the matter? I appreciate the fact that it is not such a high-priority case, like an actual murder, but I seriously believe that potential poisoning of a person's medication, food and water is serious enough to warrant an investigation. Seriously, PLEASE let me know if you have any viable suggestions.

S____ D___

---- Original Message -----
From: Martin Woock
To: S____ D____
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 5:04 PM
Subject: LMR Interest
Dear Ms. D____:
Further to our previous communications regarding interest on last month rent deposit (LMR), we have reviewed your account and are able to respond as follows:
The interest cheque that you received on September 11th, 2002 included compounded interest on your LMR from the commencement date of your tenancy right up to March 31st, 2002.
Your LMR account, including interest applied in March 2003, 2004 and 2005, presently stands at $677.13. After updating your LMR deposit to your current rent value of $621.68, a balance of $55.45 remains available for deduction from your rent cheque for December 2005.
In respect of the LMR interest for your earlier tenancy at apartment B2 @ 180 Queen Mary Road which you indicate ended in 1991, we are not able to determine what the final accounting was as the files for that period have been destroyed. We are required to keep files for 7 years after termination of a tenancy and they would have been destroyed after 1998.
In the interests of resolving this matter expeditiously, however, we are prepared to offer you a credit of $50.00 to offset any interest outstanding after LMR updates at the time. Our normal practice provides for a final accounting at the end of a tenancy, and calculations based on the information that you have furnished suggest that a balance of approximately $10.00 would have been available to apply to your final account. The $50.00 credit will be applied to your account and we suggest you add it to the deduction for LMR interest of $55.45 for a total deduction of $105.45 from December 2005 rent cheque.
Finally, we have requested rent receipts for the duration of your tenancy at your current address and will forward them by mail once they are available.
Yours truly,
Martin Woock.
End of E-mail to Martin Woock Dated November 30, 2005

DECEMBER 6, 2005 CONTACT, OVER THE PHONE, WITH CONSTABLE BREWER RE THE SEPT/05 BREAK-IN:

At 10:20 p.m. on Tuesday, December 6, 2005, I received a telephone call from Constable Harry Brewer of the Kingston Police Department at 549-4660, Extension 6237, regarding my report (KPD Incident #: 05-37793). He took the details of the break-in over the telephone, just as Alison had on November 8th. Neither he nor any other member of the Kingston Police Department has ever come to my apartment to file a report on the break-in(s) or view the site of the break-in, or to collect evidence. I reiterate, the only reports were taken over the telephone by Alison on November 8th, and then again by Constable Brewer over the telephone on December 6th, 2005.

I expressed to Constable Brewer, as I had previously to the two dispatchers at the Kingston Police Department, that not only was I concerned about the items that were stolen from my apartment, I was even more concerned about the potential contamination of foods, medication, water, etc. by a chemical, in an attempt to poison me. Just prior to the September 18, 2005 break-in, I had purchased a full unopened bottle of Boric Acid, which I had placed in the kitchen cupboard over the sink. I discovered that the bottle was almost totally emptied of the contents, when I inspected the apartment immediately after it was burglarized. I had not ever opened the bottle or used any of the contents. I advised him that the first dispatcher, on October 18th, told me that I should not have thrown out any of the items that may have been poisoned, because they could be tested. Then I added that I still had many of the items here (partial bottle of distilled water, vitamins/supplements, non-perishable food items, etc.), but he did not take any for testing, or even offer to take items for testing. He showed no interest in testing any of these items for poison.

Constable Brewer asked if there had been signs of forced entry into the apartment and I said no. I explained how a previous super (Pete McDonald) had changed the lock in 1998 and that the new lock (Shlage) was not compatible with the master key for the rest of the building (Weiser). When the new super arrived to have me sign the work order to change the lock (Oct. 17/05), he attempted to open the deadbolt lock with the master key for the building and told me it did not work. I further explained that I have never had a roommate or given/loaned my key to anyone, so no one obtained a copy of the key through me, and I have lived here since August 1994, so a previous tenant could not have a copy of my key. I advised him that the superintendent also confirmed that there were no visible signs of forced entry, when he changed my deadbolt lock on the morning of October 17, 2005 and I advised the Constable to contact the super if he wished to confirm this fact. I also told the officer that the new super advised me that he moved the keys for all of the tenant's apartments from the basement office to his apartment, and that he was changing locks on doors to which only he was supposed to have access. I later found out that all of the apartment keys in the building were going to be changed over a several month period, though Woock denied in an e-mail to me that this is not a knee-jerk reaction to my report of the break-in.

I advised Constable Brewer about the many problems I had in previous months with Rick St. Louis, common-law partner of then-acting super Marlene St. Louis. I told him how I filed a police report against a visibly inebriated Rick St. Louis, after he attempted to enter my apartment on two separate occasions (June 30 and July 29, 2005, KPD Incident #: 05-24431; report taken in person and on site by Constable Nadine Legare). Also, on June 3, 2005, I reported a very violent domestic disturbance between Marlene and Rick St. Louis, when they lived immediately below me in apartment 401. I then told him how I had to contact the super (their drinking buddy who referred Marlene to Homestead, which led to her employment as an assistant super, and later acting super when Bill Gilbert was fired in August/05), Bill Gilbert regarding another loud verbal altercation early the next morning. At approximately 11:00 p..m. on July 1st, when I was returning home, and in the lobby awaiting the arrival of the elevator, I saw Bill Gilbert (the super then) and Rick St. Louis, both visibly inebriated and staggering, leaving Gilbert's apartment and walking in my direction. From just feet away, as they got closer to me, I overheard Gilbert telling St. Louis that I was the person who reported him to the police on June 3rd. After I made even more written complaints to Woock, over the following weeks, about subsequent loud altercations in the St. Louis apartment, the St. Louis's were moved from 401 to 112.

Then I advised Constable Brewer that there were tenants in the building who, in all likelihood, knew details about the break-in (drinking buddies of Marlene and Rick St. Louis: Dave Vanhooser; the previous superintendent Bill Gilbert who moved in with Vanhooser when his employment was terminated in August, 2005 after the fire department confirmed for Woock that he had passed out drunk while cooking on three separate occasions; Kris Shillington; two female tenants and possibly other tenants), and added that because of "drunken bragging" eventually details about the break-in should or would eventually leak out. However, Constable Brewer did not offer to interview any of these, or any other, potential witnesses. Instead, he told ME to contact HIM if there were any further developments in my case. I told the officer that I had set up my videocamera and tried to "catch" the burglar should he return, but coincidentally there were no further attempts to break into my apartment after the St. Louis's were transferred to 204 Queen Mary Road very soon (about a week) after the current superintendent began working here.

I advised Constable Brewer that Rick St. Louis had the MEANS:
(1) Access to my apartment key, and all apartment and other keys in the building. He carried a full set of keys to the building, on him, at all times.
(2) Homestead supers have two televisions in their living rooms, one of which is supplied by Homestead, for the exclusive purpose of watching activity in the lobby via the videocamera, and Homestead also provides basic cable TV access though which the signal is delivered from the lobby. The lobby videocamera is angled, so that a view of the driveway is seen. This is most visible between dusk and dawn, or under certain circumstances, such as when there is snow on the ground. When I leave the property in my car, I always enter and exit the parking lot, via the driveway that runs directly in front of the building. When it is dark outside, my car (and other vehicles) are most recognizable.

Rick St. Louis had the OPPORTUNITY:
(1) I was out of the apartment, from approximately 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on September 18, 2005. As I stated, I rarely leave the premises. When I do leave, it is not on any kind of a fixed schedule and I advise no one, especially anyone else in the building, in advance. Marlene, his common-law partner, was the acting super at the time.

Rick St. Louis had the MOTIVE (MANY MOTIVES IN FACT):
(1) The report I had filed against him with the Kingston Police Department, for trying to enter my apartment twice when drunk (KPD Incident #05-24431).
(2) The violent domestic disturbance that I reported to Kingston Police on June 3rd.
(3) I reported numbers 1 and 2, plus numerous other subsequent domestic disturbances to Woock at Homestead, in writing, until Woock moved them to Apt. 112.
(4) Many other written complaints, to the rental office, that I filed against Marlene, with Woock. Some of these included one evening when I videotaped her, via the lobby camera, walking by a first floor tenant who was smoking a cigarette in the lobby, and she did not stop him or speak to him. I filed another complaint, when she refused to respond to a noise disturbance call when she was ACTUALLY ON DUTY (she was only on DUTY during alternating weekends and refused to work even then!!!!!), even after I paged her numerous times. No one ever told me what excuse she used for not attending the noise complaint, even when Woock replied, stating that he had spoken with her about it. There were other complaints.
(5) Rick and his drinking buddies (Shillington, Vanhooser, and other tenants in this building; as well as other Homestead supers like Elsie and husband Arnold Davis, Esther and husband Rick Legere, and tenants in other buildings on Parkway) blamed me when Bill Gilbert got fired in early August, 2005. Hey, I was not the one who was drinking on duty, in the daytime on weekdays, in 509! I even reported, in writing to the rental office, at least one incident in 2004 when he was very drunk in the mid-afternoon!

I had filed countless written/verbal complaints to Lambert, Minnes, and Woock at the rental office, about Gilbert's drinking on the job, his refusal to act on noise complaints, and other complaints too numerable to mention. Gilbert got fired when, for the third time (Sat., Aug. 6, 2005), the fire department had to be called to the building in the middle of the night, after Gilbert got drunk and passed out while cooking. This was a definite fire hazard and each time the building filled with smoke and an acrid stench. Woock had been notified in writing about the second incident, that occurred in early 2004, but had not acted upon it. Then later in August, because I leave the building so infrequently, I did not find out that Gilbert had been fired, until Woock told me in an e-mail about one week after the fact.

End of Discussion with Const. Brewer Re: Sept./05 Break-In. Following is Discussion With Neighbour Re: St. Louis:

Since speaking with Constable Brewer, I spoke with a neighbour one day, when we met in the parking lot. He confirmed for me that he too had seen the common-law partner of Marlene St. Louis (who was the acting super after Gilbert was terminated, until the new super was hired and began working in Sept./05 (14th I believe), named Rick St. Louis carrying on his person a set of keys for the entire building. He then added that a skinny adult male border (his words, not mine) of the St. Louis's also carried a full set of keys to the building. Both males were seen, by him and others in the building, using these keys to enter areas of the building, which were only supposed to be accessed by the superintendent, but neither of them was employed by Homestead Land Holdings Limited. The neighbour further advised me that he was told that both Rick and the skinny male (again his words, not mine) were both Marlene's borders. It appears that Marlene is collecting government benefits (for herself and her son). Rick is supposedly collecting benefits of his own, at another address as far as I can tell. The other "border" is employed by a cleaning contractor, and works the night shift at Super C, 1225 Princess St., Kingston.

The neighbour and I discussed that Homestead moved the St. Louis's to one of their other buildings, at 204 Queen Mary Road. (Marlene is an assistant super in that building. Homestead even paid for their moving expenses yet again, having paid expenses for the move from Apt. 401 to 112, but this time also the moving company.) He then told me that Homestead was forced to move them, because many tenants on Parkway had complained to Homestead that Marlene's son was bullying kids in the building and townhouses, telling the neighbourhood kids that his father was the super!

The St. Louis's appeared to be "trouble tenants" from the beginning. They moved to the building, at 154 Parkway, and into Apartment 209 in March of 2005. I do not know whether they were Bill Gilbert's drinking buddies before they moved here or quickly became Gilbert's drinking buddies soon after they moved here! Either way, for some reason, they moved to Apt. 401 on June 1/05. I can only surmise as to why they moved. Kris Shillington told me on June 3/05 that they had moved, because they needed more room. This could have been, because the fellow who works with the cleaning contractor at Super C (Soon to become Food Basics) on Princess St., Kingston, moved in with St. Louis as a border. Maybe previous neighbours were also sick and tired of the constant, almost daily, violent altercations. If tenants tried to file complaints against the St. Louis's, then it is most likely that Gilbert kept covering those complaints against them, by not reporting them to the rental office.

The police appeared to know who they were. Two days after they moved to 401, directly beneath my apartment, I had to report a very violent domestic disturbance to Kingston Police on June 3/05. There was much door slamming, use of profanity (THAT WOULD MAKE A "SAILOR ON SHORE LEAVE BLUSH") by both Marlene and Rick, and it sounded like items were being thrown and smashed.

Shortly after police left them, yet another drinking buddy, Kris Shillington in 407, was banging on my door. Because Gilbert constantly divulged confidential tenant information, being particularly loose-lipped when he was drinking (WHICH COINCIDENTALLY WAS ALMOST EVERY DAY), Kris assumed after talking with Rick St. Louis that I had phoned the police. Kris was already drunk, so he confronted me about it. He insisted that they were his good friends. All drunked-up, he was getting emotional and going on, over and over, with "They are my friends." and "I helped them move to 401.", "He thought that she called the cops and threatened to walk out, but I talked him out of it.", etc, etc. etc.

I had no way of knowing that they were his friends. All I was concerned about, was the fact that neighbours were cursing and swearing, and slamming doors and throwing things! Because I have known Kris, as a neighbour for some time, I did not report to Woock that he was the tenant, that had interfered and confronted me about the police report. Also, because of him, I did not telephone the police the next morning, when the violent altercation erupted YET AGAIN, or when subsequent altrcations ensued. IN RETROSPECT, I WISH I HAD. After many more altercations, Homestead Land Holdings did nothing, except reward Marlene with employment, as Gilbert's assistant super. Even working alternate weekends, she did nothing. Well, that was how Gilbert operated!

Finally, after I reported even more loud and violent altercations in their apartment (in writing to Woock), and the fact that Rick tried to get into my apartment twice (Kingston Police Incident # 05-23341), Homestead moved them to Apt. 112 (Gilbert's apartment), moving Gilbert to 110, paying all moving expenses (tranferring phone, cable, hydro, and other services). That was a little over two months after they moved to Apt. 401! Very soon after that, Homestead paid their expenses, even hiring the moving company, and moved them to 204 Queen Mary Road a short time later, in September (approximately a week after the new super started working here on the 14th)!

WHO KNOWS HOW MANY TIMES THEY WERE FORCED TO MOVE BEFORE COMING TO 154 PARKWAY, BUT IN ABOUT FIVE MONTHS, THEY MOVED THREE TIMES, WITHIN THIS BUILDING! I CAN ONLY GUESS IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE VIOLENT ALTERCATIONS, LIKE THOSE THAT I WAS FORCED TO LISTEN TO, ALL THE WEEKS THAT THEY WERE IN APT. 401!!! So Woock moved them and gave Marlene a job as assistant super at 204 Queen Mary Road in Kingston. The tenants there are the ones, who have to worry about Rick breaking into their apartments. Woock was forewarned. The thing is, at least many of the tenants in that building can afford to hire a lawyer, when a pass key is used to break into their apartments.

SECOND UPDATE FROM KITTEN ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2006:

Is there anybody else out there who thinks that my landlord is HARASSING AND TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ME????? AS IF IT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO EVICT ME, BECAUSE OF THE CONTENTS OF MY BLOG, THEY ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT "THE CONTENT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HARASSING, LIBELOUS, DEFAMATORY AND CONTRAVENES P.I.P.E.D.A." WHEN I WAS TOLD PERSONALLY BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF CANADA PRIVACY COMMISSIONER THAT P.I.P.E.D.A. DOES NOT REGULATE PERSONAL BLOGS, WHICH THIS IS!!!!! IT WAS NOT BAD ENOUGH that they lied at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal case I filed against them years ago (hearing was Jan. 2/01), which was why I started this blog in the first place, just prior to Homestead illegally forcing Lycos.Inc to shut down my original website at http://kingstonkittens.tripod.com.

I can still prove that they did not have to get into my apartment, in 2000. Maurice Therrien testified that he had to access air intake valves in my apartment, to bleed air from the lines. Lambert put the same information in her affidavit. WELL, there have never been air intake valves in the apartment, or any apartment in this building. Doug Werden, the City of Kingston Property Standards Officer proved that. He personally told me that all of the air intake valves are on the roof of this building. Also, when they finally fixed the master bedroom radiator, after initially refusing when the painter reported that the radiator was not working when he treated the mould on Dec. 31/05 and in early January when I also reported that it was not working, Maurice Therrien eventually fixed the radiator by opening the valve on the roof. WHO KNOWS JUST HOW LONG THAT VALVE HAD BEEN TURNED OFF!!! I had contacted Mr. Werden about the apartment being very cold once before, nearly two years earlier, in January of 2003. SHALL I CONTINUE???

AS IF IT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH that Homestead refused to do vital repairs to the apartment (especially replacing the disintegrating asbestos floor tiles and replacing very warped drafty windows for 10 1/2 years), even though I repeatedly and continually went through the proper channels.

AS IF IT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH that they refused to offer any financial compensation for all of the personal items that were destroyed by toxic mould (OVER $6,200 WORTH, and that is an estimate from April, 2005, MOSTLY CLOTHING, BEDDING AND WINDOW COVERINGS) when there was a leak in the roof of their building and water was blowing under the flashing (as relayed to me by Bill Gilbert, after Williams Brothers inspected and repaired the roof, and advised Gilbert).

I am still using green trash bags and dollar store shower curtain liners as window coverings, and the bedding I am forced to use is full of holes, because Woock refused to help replace any of the items destroyed by the toxic mould (in spite of the fact that I personally asked Cheryl Lambert to help replace these items when she was here for the December 30, 2004 toxic mould inspection, when she told me directly to my face that she would help replace them, which I also relayed to Woock in writing) and, in an e-mail, he refused to pay for the items that were stolen and the many items I had to discard, because of potential chemical poisoning when the break-in occurred, unless I can prove that Homestead Land Holdings Limited was responsible for the security breach.

What do you think? Remember, the common-law partner of Marlene St. Louis (Rick) and the border were both seen carrying a set of keys to the building and were also seen using them to enter areas designated as only accessible by the superintendents. Rick St. Louis held many grudges against me, for reporting his June 3/05 domestic disturbance to police and subsequent altercations to Homestead which prompted them to move St. Louis and "family - border included"; for filing Police report (KPD Incident #05-24431) against him for trying to enter my apartment twice when drunk; for miscellaneous other complaints I made in writing to Woock about he and Marlene.).

AS IF IT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH that Cheryl Lambert blasted me over the phone when I told her that I had not one, but two (2) witnesses, who were in the room and heard Bill Gilbert say I was the "FAT BITCH IN 501 (Bill Gilbert's words, not mine) that he wanted out of the building" in January of 2003 in Dave Vanhooser's apartment, while Gilbert was there sucking back beer in the early afternoon of a week- "work" day, an incident I even reported to Woock in writing.

AS IF IT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH that action was not taken on many noise and other complaints I made, in writing and still have, to the Johnson St. rental office.

AS IF IT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH that very, very, very soon after I reported to Woock in writing that I overheard Gilbert tell Rick St. Louis that I was the person who reported St. Louis's June 3, 2005 violent domestic disturbance to the Kingston Police Department, two days after St. Louis moved in to 401 directly beneath me, that I found a new series of scratches in the paint on the right rear passenger door of my poor little abused car (which I reported to Woock in an e-mail, but he refused to help pay for the damages to my personal property).

If I tried to ask other tenants if they witnessed this or other things like the break-in on September 18/05, or posted a notice seeking witnesses, then Homestead would use that as an excuse to evict me. Several years ago, a tenant on the 2nd floor personally told me that he was threatened with eviction, when he tried to find witnesses in the building, to help substantiate his complaints.

AS IF IT WAS NOT BAD ENOUGH that after I reported numerous times in writing to the rental office (Lambert, Minnes, and Woock) that kids were playing between parked cars in the parking lot, which is potentially very dangerous, that they finally posted a notice on a sheet of paper stating that kids should not play between parked cars (posted at the front door initially; as of now is posted by the back exit and in the laundry room), which no one enforces to this day, by the way. Just last week, kids erected a ramp over a concrete divider in the parking lot, between parked cars. They were riding very fast between other parked cars, in order to gain momentum and jump their ramp. They were soon joined by two adult males, on bicycles of course, from one of the townhouses.; AS IF IT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH that Homestead denies all responsibility for the break-in that occurred in my apartment on September 18, 2005, denying that it was someone who had access to the tenant's keys, even though Rick St. Louis had a set of keys to the building, being the common-law partner of the assistant, then later acting, super Marlene St. Louis. I have never given or loaned a copy of my key to anyone, and have never had a roommate. The super changed the lock in 1998, so a previous tenant could not have the key. WHO ELSE COULD HAVE BROKEN INTO MY APARTMENT AND MORE THAN LIKELY POISONED MY WATER, FOOD, MEDS/SUPPLEMENTS WITH BORIC ACID, THEN RE-LOCKED MY DOOR WHEN LEAVING, ESPECIALLY WHEN I DO NOT EVEN GO OUT VERY OFTEN? The bottle of boric acid was full when I bought it just prior to the break-in, and I found the bottle almost totally empty when I inspected it right after the break-in, and I have never used it.

I ASK OF YOU, WHICH PARTY IS HARRASSING AND INTIMIDATING THE OTHER, "PENNILESS PHYSICALLY DISABLED ON A FIXED PENSION WITH NO POWERFUL RICH FRIENDS, LAWYERS OR POLITICIANS IN MY "BACK POCKET" SELF-ADMITTEDLY NO NUCLEAR PHYSICIST ALBEIT NOT PARANOID, NOT STUPID ENOUGH TO LIE IN WRITING, AND NOT PRONE TO CONFABULATION WIDOWED 46 YEAR OLD FEMALE" ME OR THE "GIANT GOLIATH-LIKE BUSINESS THAT IS WORTH OVER TWO BILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000,000.00) THAT AUTOMATICALLY DENIES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY AND ALL WRONG-DOING ON THEIR BEHALF AND WHO FORCE THE LEGAL(??????) AND/OR ILLEGAL "SHUT-DOWN" OF ANY WEBSITE OR OTHER MEANS OF REPORTING TO THE PUBLIC THAT PROVE JUST HOW HORRIBLY, DEPLORABLY, AND SADISTICALLY THEY TREAT THEIR TENANTS, ESPECIALLY THE FINANCIALLY-CHALLENGED AND/OR PHYSICALLY WEAK TENANTS, WHOM HAVE NO FINANCIAL OR OTHER MEANS TO FIGHT BACK OR OTHERWISE DEFEND THEMSELVES, POSSIBLY MORALLY BANKRUPT" HOMESTEAD LAND HOLDINGS LIMITED????? I shall allow you to decide for yourself.

UPDATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2006: I am transcribing, in verbatim, two documents. The first is the Lambert's Affidavit to the ORHT on January 2, 2001. The second is the order, issued by MacInnis, on January 5, 2001.

Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal AFFIDAVIT File Number EAT-02346
This documented was presented to Ian MacInnis, by Bailiff Paul Fudge, at the hearing on January 2, 2001:

I, Cheryl Lambert, of the City of Kingston, in the County of Frontenac make oath and say as follows:

1) I am the Property Manager for 154 Parkway Street, Kingston, and have knowledge of the matters herein disposed to.
2) In late August or early September 2000 I was present at 154 Parkway Street, Kingston, performing a monthly inspection of this building.
3) Two employees of Williams Brothers Restoration, who specialize in water infiltration problems, approached myself and the building superintendent, Elsie Davis to advise that they needed access to apartment 501 to resolve a water leak in the building. The water leak was affecting apartment 401 & 301 at 154 Parkway Street.
4) The four of us attended at apartment 501 and Elsie Davis knocked on the door several times. She did not receive a response.
5) Elsie Davis then advised me that we had been given permission to enter apartment 501 to do repairs regarding the water leak.
6) Elsie Davie then unlocked the door of apartment 501 and was met by S___ D___ who was very angy and asked "what's going on".
7) I advised S___ D___ that there must have been a misunderstanding as we believed that we had permission to enter her unit.
8) I apologized and asked if we could enter her unit to do the repair. She then allowed entry into her unit.
9) I advised S___ D___ that she would be given 24 hours notice for entry in the future unless an emergency occurred.
10) I am advised by Maurice Therrien, a provincially licensed heating contractor, and I verily believe it to be true, that when the heating system broke down December 7th that an emergency situation existed and access had to be gained to the top 4 top corner units at 154 Parkway Street, Kingston, unit 501 being one of the top corner units.
11) Entry had to be gained to unit 501 on December 7th and December 14th as a result of the heating system breakdown to ensure that the system was bled of air so that the heating system in the building would be fully operational. If the system was not operational entire sections of the building would be without heat.
12) I am unable to attend this hearing as I had previously booked a vacation and will be in Europe from December 29th, until January 5th, 2001.
13) I make this affidavit for the purpose of obtaining an adjournment until I return or in the alternative having my evidence considered by the Tribunal and for no other improper purpose.
End of Affidavit

This Affidavit was presented, during the hearing, by Homestead Land Holding Limited's Bailiff, Paul Fudge to MacInnis. It was accepted by Ian MacInnis. EVEN THOUGH MACINNIS AND ORHT ACCEPTED THIS DOCUMENT AS EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING, THEY REFUSED TO ALLOW ME TO USE IT, TO APPEAL THE ORDER.

In para. 3 Lambert states that access is needed to my apartment to resolve a water leak. As stated previously in my Blog, Elsie was here three weeks earlier. She told me that Williams Brothers Restoration would be in the following week, and the repairs they had to make were "outside" the building. She added that someone may have to come in to my apartment after that, to caulk above the windows. I assumed that the matter had been dealt with weeks earlier and that no one had to come to my apartment. I never gave her carte blanche (or would ever give anyone carte blanche) permission to enter, not even being sure that someone would have to caulk the windows.

In paras. 3-5 Lambert states that Elsie knocked on the door and, upon getting no answer, advised that I had given permission to enter, and used her pass key. I ASK, WHY DID ELSIE HAVE MY KEY ON HER 'IN THE FIRST PLACE, IF SHE HAD NOT INTENDED TO USE IT FOR A NON-EMERGENT PURPOSE'????? The master key for the building would not open my door. My lock was Shlage and the rest of the locks were Weiser! There was no crucial OR emergency repair, just the possibility that they might have to caulk above the living room windows. Elsie had advised me three weeks earlier that the leak repairs to be made were "outside" the building.

In para. 9 Lambert stated that in future I would be given 24 hours notice, "unless an emergency occurred". Well, this is a right """allegedly""" afforded to me under the TPA.

In paras. 11-12 Lambert stated that Therrien advised her that there was a "heating emergency". "Entry had to be gained to unit 501 on December 7th and December 14th as a result of the heating system breakdown to ensure that the system was bled of air, so that the heating system in the building would be fully operational." and if not "entire sections of the building would be without heat". Why did Elsie try to use her key on the 7th and 14th. When I caught her using her key on the 14th, she admitted, to me, that she also used her key on the 7th. If there was an emergency, then why did she not telephone me (at the hearing she said she did not have my phone number; my call display still shows her phoning me on Sept. 23/00 at 8:00 p.m. and I have a carbon copy of a letter that she requested regarding a noise complaint, in which I mention that phone call) or have the office staff phone me (they have ALWAYS had my number on file), leave a note on or under my door, or in my mailbox, or find any countless number of ways to contact me. The thing is, she came to the door, with the pre-conceived plan to unlock my door, no matter what. BELIEVE ME, I asked these and many more questions at the hearing, but was repeatedly stonewalled by MacInnis. He was verbally abusive to me throughout the whole hearing.

SOME FURTHER INFORMATION TO CONSIDER: The building was erected in 1959, according to the corner stone, and the same heating system is in use today, that was installed back then. There are not now, nor have there ever been, "air intake valves" located in any apartment at 154 Parkway. The "air intake valves", which are used to bleed the system of air, are on the roof of the building. I was informed of this fact by the City of Kingston Property Standards Officer, Doug Werden, and it can be confirmed by Mr. Werden or any heating contractor. When Therrien fixed my bedroom rad, on January 12th, 2005, after Mr. Werden ordered Homestead to fix the rad after they repeatedly refused (Toxic Mould found Dec. 26/04, see above), he had to go to the roof to fix it, and reported to me that the valve had been closed.

Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal Order under Section 35 Tenant Protection Act, 1997 File Number EAT-02346

In the Matter of: 501 - 154 Parkway, Kingston ON K7M 3E7
Between: S____ D___ Tenant
and Homestead Land Holdings Ltd. Landlord

S____ D___ applied for an order to determine whether Homestead Land Holdings Ltd. entered the rental unit illegally.
This application was heard in Kingston on January 2, 2001.

It is determined that:
1. The Landlord attempted to enter the unit on two occasions in the month of December, 2000. The attempted entries were justified due to an emergency situation involving the failure of the complex's heating system and the potential for water pipes to freeze.
2. At no time did the landlord actually enter the unit without the Tenant's permission.
3. Therefore, I find that Homestead Land Holdings Ltd. did not enter the rental unit illegally.

Issue of Costs:
The tenant has resided at this complex for six years. Apart from this application, the tenant has never filed an application against this landlord for illegal entry. Notwithstanding the fact that the landlord attempted to explain the reason for wishing to gain entry, the tenant proceeded with the application. Based on all of the evidence, I find that the landlord acted reasonably and responsibly in dealing with the emergency situation that arose in the first weeks of December, 2000. Why the tenant did not or would not accept the landlord's right to gain entry in such circumstances is difficult to understand. In the tenant's application, she indicates she is seeking an apology from the landlord and an abatement of rent in the amount of $2,115.08, which is the equivalent of a 100% abatement of four months' rent. The tenant is unable to substantiate her claim. The tenant unnecessarily caused the landlord to expend staff time and expense in preparing for and appearing at the hearing of this application. The landlord's legal represenative, in my view, quite reasonably asks for costs at the Guideline rate of $75.00 times 5.5 hours.

It is ordered that:
1. S____ D___'s application is dismissed.
2. S____ D___ shall pay costs to the landlord in the amount of $412.50. This amount shall be paid on or before January 15, 2001, failing which the tenant shall owe interest on the unpaid balance at a rate of 7.00% per annum comencing January 16, 2001.

January 2, 2001 Ian MacInnis's signature
Date Issued Ian MacInnis
Member, Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal
Easter District, 4th Floor, 255 Albert Street, Ottawa ON K1P 6A9
If you have any questions about this order, call 1-888-332-3234.
End of Order

Please note, in my application for the hearing, I explicitly stated that the superintendent illegally used her key, on three separate occasions, to deliberately ATTEMPT to enter the apartment, without my prior knowledge and/or consent. Each time, she unlocked the deadbolt and pushed her body against the door repeatedly, trying to open the door. The only reason why she did not gain entry to the apartment each time, was because I had engaged a barrel bolt lock (sliding keyless bolt that a previous tenant installed in lieu of a chain guard, which can only be engaged from inside). I never stated that the superintendent entered my unit illegally, I stated that she made illegal attempts to gain entry. HOW DO I KNOW? WELL, I was in bed and she awakened me with, not her alleged knocking on the door, but with the noise from repeatedly engaging the deadbolt and throwing her body against the door.

Earlier in this Blog, I summed up what happened at the hearing. Throughout the hearing, MacInnis was abrasive, rude, condescending, obnoxious, and abusive towards me. He did not even attempt to conceal his blatant contempt for me. At one point, he asked why I had never filed a complaint against the landlord before, for illegally entering my apartment. I replied simply that, I had never caught a superintendent illegally using a key before. At another point, he asked why was I now causing trouble for the landlord, after having lived there for six years. I simply replied that I was not trying to cause trouble for the landlord.

Feedback is graciously welcomed. No SPAM please.



OTHER BLOGS TO CHECK OUT:

http://terrorizethetenant.blogspot.com/

http://kingstonkittens5.blogspot.com/

http://homesteadlandholdings.blogspot.com/

http://homesteadlandholdingsltd.blogspot.com/